BOOTA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant criminal revision petition, at the hands of the complainant, is directed against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 29.1.2014, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Guruhar Sahai and also impugned judgment dated 10.11.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, dismissing the appeal of the complainant-petitioner, while upholding the impugned judgment of acquittal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in para 2 to 8 of the impugned judgment are that earlier complainant-Buta Singh and accused No.1 Sukhmander Singh were the partners of M/s Shiva Agro Industry, Guruharsahai. They were having other partners also at that time and were having joint account in State Bank of Patiala, Guruharsahai. The accused-respondents No. 2 and 3 in connivance with each other withdrew an amount of Rs. 2,11,000/- from the said bank by forging signatures of Buta Singh and committed fraud with him. The amount was withdrawn by the accused by way of two cheques bearing No. 901113 dated 13.4.2004 for an amount of Rs. 1,16,000/- and another cheque bearing No. 901116 dated 1.5.2004 for an amount of Rs. 95,000/-. In fact, Buta Singh never signed those cheques for the withdrawal of the amount. Accused No.2-Ajay Kumar Sharma was working as a clerk with accused No.1 and being his employee, had also signed the cheques in token of receipt of the payment. Accused No.3 being Manager of the Bank was having knowledge that the cheques did not bear his signatures, but he helped accused No.1 in withdrawing the amount from the joint account and took active part in the conspiracy hatched by accused No.1 in connivance with other accused. After coming to know about the fraud, Buta Singh served a notice. Upon notice, Regional Manager and General Manager, in their reply stated that there might be some dispute between the partners of the firm but the cheques were valid and legal. However, the bank never tried to inquire about the matter and to compare the signatures of the cheques with the disputed cheques. Thereafter, various complaints were moved before the police but to no effect.

(3.) In preliminary evidence, the complainant examined CW1 Pawan, CW2 Sanjeev Sharma, Figner Print and handwriting expert. Complainant himself stepped into the witness box as CW3 and thereafter closed his evidence. On the basis of preliminary evidence, accused No.1 and 2 were summoned by the learned trial court to face trial under Sections 420/467/120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, ('IPC' for short), vide order dated 9.2.2010.